0:00

Introducing Bluehost Cloud. Ultra-fast WordPress

0:02

hosting with 100% uptime. Want

0:06

a website with unmatched power, speed,

0:08

and control? Of course you do.

0:11

And now you can have all

0:13

three with Bluehost Cloud. The new

0:15

web hosting plan from Bluehost. With

0:17

100% uptime and incredibly speedy load

0:19

times, your WordPress websites will be

0:22

dependable and lightning fast on a

0:24

global scale. Plus, your sites can

0:26

handle even the biggest traffic spikes

0:28

without going down or lagging. And

0:30

with Bluehost Cloud, you get

0:33

24-7 WordPress priority support. Meaning

0:35

you're connected to WordPress experts

0:37

any time you need them.

0:40

Not to mention, you automatically

0:42

get daily backups and world-class

0:44

security. So what are you

0:46

waiting for? Get Bluehost Cloud

0:48

today by visiting bluehost.com. That's

0:52

bluehost.com. This

1:01

is Open to Debate. I'm John Donvan. Hi

1:03

everybody. Today's debate concerns something that you have

1:05

probably come across in your personal life. In

1:07

fact, every time you've ever applied for a

1:09

job. Step one in that process

1:12

is almost always filling out the job application online

1:14

or on paper. And you have a bunch of

1:16

blanks to fill in and a bunch of boxes

1:18

to check off. You know, name,

1:20

education, past experience, job skills, etc, etc.

1:23

Well, often there's a box you have to check that

1:25

asks whether you have ever been convicted of a crime.

1:28

For a variety of reasons, employers want

1:30

to know upfront whether you have a criminal

1:32

record or not before they learn very much else

1:34

about you. But what is

1:37

the likely impact of checking yes in

1:39

that box for the approximately 70 million

1:41

Americans who do have a criminal record?

1:43

Is it fair to be asking that

1:45

question right at the start? Well, there's

1:48

a movement going on for fair chance

1:50

hiring policies known informally as ban the

1:52

box. To

1:55

get rid of that checkbox. And there are

1:57

now laws on the books in 37 states banning the

1:59

box. in public sector jobs. They're being 82

2:02

ayes and 47 nays the bill is

2:04

passed and its title agreed to. And

2:06

in many other cities as well. The Portland

2:08

City Council is taking public comment on

2:10

the mayor's proposal to ban the box.

2:13

With over a dozen states also banning

2:15

the box for private employers. It's

2:18

official. Colorado has banned the box. Employers

2:21

will no longer be able to ask

2:23

if you've been convicted of a crime

2:25

on a job application. And this is

2:27

not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats

2:29

have actually teamed up on this one,

2:31

including in Congress, where a

2:33

bipartisan congressional effort led to the passage

2:35

of a ban on the box for

2:38

all federal employees. And it was

2:40

signed into law by President Trump. But there's been

2:42

some criticism of these policies also, with some

2:44

arguing that delaying background checks, not letting

2:46

employers ask a question about criminal history

2:49

right up front, has unforeseen

2:51

negative consequences and may in fact be hurting some

2:53

of the people it's meant to help. Has

2:56

this legislation been adopted too hastily before

2:58

we can take stock of whether it

3:00

really works as intended? Well,

3:02

for us, the disagreement surrounding this sounds like

3:04

the makings of a debate. So here during

3:06

National Second Chance Month, we're going to

3:09

go right at it with this question.

3:11

Ban the box. Should we banish the

3:13

criminal history checkbox from job applications? Answering

3:16

yes to that question, saying that we should

3:18

ban the box, we have Beth Avery, senior

3:20

staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project.

3:22

Beth, welcome to Open to Debate. I'm so

3:24

happy to be with you. And answering no,

3:27

saying that we should not ban the box.

3:29

Jennifer Doleak, executive vice president of criminal justice

3:31

at Arnold Ventures. Welcome to you also, Jennifer,

3:33

to Open to Debate. Hi, thanks for having

3:35

me. Before we get started, I just want

3:37

to get a little bit of a sense of what

3:40

motivates each of you to be involved in

3:42

this issue at all. So I'll go to

3:44

you first, Beth. What inspired you to start

3:46

getting involved with this question at all? Yeah,

3:48

well, I guess, you know, my serious

3:50

interest in employment as a

3:53

big factor to our identity, stems

3:55

from my father struggling

3:57

with cancer when I was a teenager. He was unable

3:59

to work. and it undercut his

4:01

whole identity as a breadwinner. Ben

4:04

fast forward to my first legal internship. I had

4:06

a legal aid client. He was an older black

4:08

man, a veteran. We were assisting him with

4:10

something else. But he kept

4:13

talking about how depressed it made him to not be able

4:15

to get a job to support his family. And

4:17

it became clear that his years old conviction record

4:19

was what was preventing him from getting a job.

4:21

So when I heard about Ban the Box, it

4:24

just made sense. Yeah, very, very personal for you.

4:26

I wanna take the same question to you, Jennifer.

4:28

What inspired you to get started on getting involved

4:30

in talking about and thinking about and writing about

4:32

this issue? Yeah, well, I'm an academic

4:34

economist by training. And I've spent my career

4:37

doing research that measures the impacts

4:39

of policies and programs related to crime and

4:41

the criminal justice system. And

4:43

economists focus on distinguishing correlation from causation on

4:46

a wide range of topics. It's not just

4:48

money. And we also worry

4:50

more than most people do about unintended

4:52

consequences. So what drew

4:54

me to studying Ban the Box was the issue

4:56

of helping people with criminal records reintegrate into their

4:59

communities and find jobs, similar

5:02

to that. But I was

5:04

also really interested in the potential for unintended

5:06

consequences, which I know we'll get into more

5:08

later. All right, well, it's very interesting to

5:10

hear how each of you care about

5:12

this and why you care about it. And now it's time

5:14

to get to our first round. In our first round, our

5:16

opening statements by each of you, in turn,

5:19

which you take a few minutes to explain why

5:21

you're arguing yes or no in answer to the

5:23

question of whether we should banish the criminal history

5:25

checkbox. Beth, you're up first.

5:27

You're answering yes, that we should banish. We

5:30

should ban the box. Please tell

5:32

us why. Of course. Well, let me

5:34

begin with why this issue, ban the box

5:37

and employment for people with records is ending.

5:40

It starts with the fact that the US has the

5:42

highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. And

5:45

as a result, nearly one in three US

5:47

adults have an arrest or conviction record that

5:49

can show up on an employment background check. And

5:51

the pain from this is not equally

5:53

distributed. Black, Latino, indigenous

5:56

people are much more likely to

5:58

have a record because our legal system, criminal. people

6:00

of color. So after

6:03

serving some of the longest sentences in the world,

6:06

people are sent back to their communities and expected to

6:08

rebuild their lives. Now, no one is

6:10

supposed to be sentenced to a lifetime of unemployment

6:12

and poverty, but people with records are

6:14

routinely denied opportunities to work, and that

6:17

means a lifelong reduction in employment and

6:19

wages and a real inability to disappear with

6:21

their families and communities. By the

6:23

way, nearly half of children have at least one

6:25

parent with a record. So why are

6:28

so many people with records denied work? Many

6:30

employers refuse to hire them, but the

6:32

truth is that background checks don't

6:34

help most employers make better hiring decisions.

6:37

Instead, it typically leads

6:39

to reductions based on stereotypes

6:41

about people with records, but

6:44

in contrast to those stereotypes, studies

6:46

show that workers with records are

6:48

reliable, solid employees. They're

6:50

trying to get economic stability for themselves.

6:53

There's no evidence that people with records are

6:55

more likely to engage in workplace misconduct than

6:57

other employees, and vague fears of recidivism tend

6:59

not to be good reasons to reject them.

7:02

The likelihood of rearrest drops steeply and quickly

7:04

after release and after just a few years,

7:07

same as anybody else. Not

7:09

to mention, having a job is

7:11

one thing that makes it much less likely that someone

7:13

will be reincarcerated. So that's

7:15

where Band the Box, also known as Fair

7:18

Chance Hiring, comes in to interrupt the stigma

7:20

and encourage employers to view workers as

7:22

more than just their record. In the status

7:24

quo, people with records are rejected at step

7:26

one, submission of the job application.

7:29

Studies show that when employers learn of a conviction

7:31

record upfront, they're much less likely to select the

7:33

applicant, especially if that applicant is black. Add

7:36

algorithms and AI to the equation, and

7:38

people might not even have a chance

7:40

to enter their qualifications, let alone have

7:42

a human look at them before they're

7:44

rejected based on their record. Band the

7:46

Box removes the questions from applications and

7:48

delays background checks. Now while I

7:51

don't have time to preempt the counter arguments that I know

7:53

are coming from Jennifer, I'll end with this. Band

7:55

the Box, Fair Chance Hiring,

7:57

it's a first important step for

8:00

Interestingly, plenty crisis facing people with

8:02

records. Does it saw that

8:04

massive problem? No single policy change

8:06

can do that. Fender. Bucks doesn't

8:08

guarantee a job, but it allows someone to get their

8:10

foot in the door. Know some

8:12

fair chance policies go bit further. The

8:14

best policies the lid until after a

8:16

job offer and their spouses also required

8:18

employer to actually consider if a pass

8:21

condition is that all job related. So.

8:23

You know that can help prevent. Impulse

8:26

from rescinding job offers for bogus reasons.

8:29

Hope finally. Ball and

8:31

a box. Maybe a first. It's

8:34

a necessary one. If. We don't bend

8:36

about. If we continue. To

8:39

allow people with records to

8:41

be rejected at step one

8:43

instance: stigma and stereotypes. The.

8:46

Stereotypes and that stigma are going to

8:48

persist and checked and they're gonna continue

8:50

to control hiring decisions. Selling with that.

8:52

Thank you very much Beth I'm Jennifer You

8:55

disagree with that. You are entering know to

8:57

the question should we managed to criminal history

8:59

checkbox from job applications Here's your chance to

9:01

tell us why Yeah let me reiterate the

9:04

problem are. All. Here trying to solve

9:06

so we can keep our and solve the

9:08

problem it motivates and the box policies is

9:10

the people with criminal records are employed. It

9:12

extremely low rates and when people don't have a

9:14

job, they may be more likely to commit crime.

9:17

Said. So there's likely a social benefits increasing

9:19

employment for this group beyond the benefit to

9:21

the individual. We all have an interest in

9:24

helping people with criminal records. Find jobs

9:26

because it makes a community safer

9:28

one. Really? That makes this

9:30

difficult. Though is that on average people with

9:32

criminal records faith many challenges relative to those

9:35

without records. This is probably one reason they

9:37

wound up with a record in the furthest.

9:40

Differences include: higher rates of poverty,

9:42

higher rates. Of substance use, an

9:44

untreated mental illness, lower educational attainment,

9:47

limited pass work experience, and emotional

9:49

trauma. A recent conviction also

9:51

means a high likelihood of rearrest given a

9:53

minefield of. Parole and Probation Requirements and series

9:55

that of Isn't Rates. This. The

9:58

unexpectedly tips and when the job. If

10:00

they're otherwise a model employee. We.

10:02

Now have clear evidence that employers discriminate

10:04

against South Africa. You have a criminal

10:06

record even when other qualification such as

10:08

schooling. And employment history or the same. So

10:10

the question is, what do we do about

10:12

this? So can we help people with criminal

10:15

records fine stable employment And when highlighted there

10:17

are many possible approaches to the it's it's

10:19

authors problems and he'll be come back to

10:21

that. One. Approach as we're discussing

10:23

that became popular over the past decade or

10:25

two with Ban The Books. Banned. About

10:27

fallacies, try to tackle the employer discrimination

10:29

problem I just mentioned. When. Someone

10:31

sex the Boston A Job application. Say Nathan

10:34

convicted of a crime many employers will

10:36

simply to start their application. Even

10:38

if they otherwise in qualified for the God. The

10:41

seems really unfair to people who serve their time

10:43

and are trying to turn our laps around. Many.

10:46

Of those people would make the crate employees a can't get

10:48

their foot in the door to make the case. Then.

10:50

Upsides To address this unfairness: Very moving

10:52

information that we wish and players did

10:55

not carry out. We wish they ignored

10:57

the criminal record and gave all qualified

10:59

applicants a chance. For. An effort

11:01

to force has been the bucks for for the

11:03

Templars. From asking about an applicant's record until late

11:05

in the process, Unfortunately,

11:08

Policy cannot actually force employers not to care

11:10

and player still want to know if an

11:12

applicant has a criminal record. For now they

11:15

can't ask of fruits. The. Splits many

11:17

in a situation where they have a strong incentive

11:19

to us. With. Applicants Hundred Record.

11:21

The result is. That been

11:23

the box increases discrimination against groups more

11:26

likely data recent conviction that might worry

11:28

an employer. In the United

11:30

States, thera largely service areas in criminal justice

11:32

and boldness. And characteristics like

11:34

used and low education. Are also

11:37

correlated with criminal activity. This.

11:39

Means that employers might use race,

11:41

age and education to guess. Who

11:43

has a recent conviction and of Elite interviewing.

11:45

People from this groups. Research.

11:48

Has now confirmed that Band The Box

11:50

has reduced employment for young black man

11:52

with limited education. In other words, and

11:55

The Box has broadened discrimination rather than

11:57

reducing it. Perhaps. More surprising,

12:00

That is also so little to no increase unemployment

12:02

for people with criminal records. The people were changed

12:04

within the first place. When. Employers

12:06

finally detect someone's criminal record before making

12:08

it official the job offer. These

12:11

stories like this applicants up a record. Clearly.

12:13

There's something about that record that Verizon and

12:16

Ban the Books Has nothing to change. This.

12:19

Might yield and about. Policies should be up and

12:21

and. They do not work

12:23

and are making other problems worse. We

12:25

should focus our time and energy and

12:27

other policy options instead including finding ways

12:30

to directly address the concerns. And far

12:32

as it is across many policy issues

12:34

dangerous, non productive to become lead to

12:36

policies before enough. I work for the

12:38

reason we see now people become attached.

12:41

the passage and information. Have been the

12:43

Ba'ath party without having the results. To

12:45

sell for it and it's kind of hundred those

12:47

aside and the politics aside and focus on helping

12:49

the people we set out to help. Like agenda

12:52

for Thanks to both of you. So now we

12:54

know where you stand on this question in why

12:56

we're going to take a quick break and when

12:58

we come back will go deeper into the issue

13:00

which were discussing were putting it dissuades band the

13:02

box should we banners the criminal history checkbox from

13:05

job applications i'm John Donne Dance and this is

13:07

open to debate more when we return. This

13:25

episode is brought to you by you.

13:27

I pass today ninety percent of the

13:29

fortune five hundred or accelerate human achievement

13:32

simply with you. I pass the world's

13:34

number one, a I powered business automation

13:36

platform. You I pass the Foundation of

13:39

Innovation. Welcome

13:45

back to open to debate on your moderator

13:47

John John Van were taking on this question

13:49

band the box should we ban or the

13:51

criminal history checkbox from job applications. We've heard

13:53

opening statements from our to debaters Bad Avery

13:55

who's a senior Staff attorney of the National

13:57

Employment Law Project and Jennifer Tilly. I could.

14:00

Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold

14:02

Ventures. I just want to tell you

14:04

what I think I heard each of

14:06

you saying in your opening in a

14:09

certain very profoundly important ways that you

14:11

share a lot of common ground. You

14:13

both really believe that the best way

14:15

back for somebody who has criminal records

14:18

is through employment in the absence of

14:20

employment exacerbates their situations to the detriment

14:22

of their prospects and also heard society

14:24

more broadly. you agree on that, but

14:26

what you are disagreeing on primarily is

14:29

whether this technique of banning the box

14:31

is just and is effective for hearing

14:33

from you about the you're saying that

14:35

just right up front. I'm having a

14:37

question immediately to strikes people from consideration

14:40

and that that's having a terrible, terrible

14:42

impact. What we're hearing from Jennifer: that

14:44

in the absence of having that particular

14:46

piece of information that employers guess whether

14:49

a potential employee has a criminal record

14:51

and that way of guessing very often

14:53

milk with falls back on racial stereotypes

14:55

and other kinds of stereotypes are and

14:57

that. Also. And ultimately down

15:00

the road the criminal records once it's

15:02

exposed even after we're in either be

15:04

were saying that there should be no

15:06

criminal background checks you talking about at

15:08

this for stops you were debating whether

15:10

there should be a check or not

15:12

but once of an employer fun makes

15:14

and as an investigation he or she

15:16

is gonna strike that person from consideration

15:18

anyway. So you're saying the band a

15:20

Box doesn't really solve the problem in

15:22

the long term so when I think

15:24

I heard each of you say is

15:26

kind of contradictory empirical evidence of whether.

15:29

Or or not we know whether

15:31

the band the box in the

15:33

places where it's being tried and

15:35

it's it is a movement. It's

15:37

now in effect and thirty seven

15:39

states and hundred fifty localities beth

15:41

Din do we know is is

15:43

a disagreement about the empirical evidence

15:45

about whether this is improving the

15:47

job prospects of people who have

15:49

criminal records or not certain parties

15:51

help workers with records. That are

15:53

set in the door. And. There is evidence out

15:55

there that it's working. A lot of

15:57

this data collected on government saying

15:59

after. Like that Derby and About Policies

16:01

were abducted. The. City and County of

16:03

San Francisco. Dana reject something like point

16:05

Seven. Less than one percent of candidates

16:07

rejected are based on their record and

16:09

some of those are rejected because a

16:12

statutory bars the District of Columbia after

16:14

day and in institute their policy lisa

16:16

thirty three percent more people with records.

16:18

Howard. Stern. Tie North Carolina

16:20

after it is upsets policy. Workers

16:23

with records hired tripled. You.

16:25

Know, In addition to the this evidence, there's

16:27

also some academic studies. You know one

16:30

looked at data from various jurisdiction to

16:32

determine that young workers with past past

16:34

conviction records were more frequently hired into.

16:36

Government jobs as it as governance past

16:38

and the back policies. And at

16:40

least two others looked at employment rates in

16:42

high crime areas, and you know, using that

16:44

as a proxy for. People with records and

16:47

they found improved employment rates after going to

16:49

Bucks. So yes, there's evidence that they're working.

16:51

Is Jennifer your response to the.

16:54

Us. And you are doing direct research on this

16:56

question. This is a question I can nerd

16:58

out about for for much longer than we

17:00

have selfless acts of so so I know.

17:02

most of the say that that suffering tail

17:05

an. Answer that the

17:07

sundays by but that focus on individuals

17:09

or stepsons where we're looking at what

17:11

happens on the box else he goes

17:13

into effect what happens the hiring on

17:16

that is basically at to separate post

17:18

comparison when the big challenges there's we

17:20

don't know what would have happened without

17:22

that policies and often a lot of

17:24

those policies past as the job market

17:26

was. Was beat. It was some ah

17:28

with picking up and arm and in it

17:31

was easier for everyone to get a job

17:33

and so we could see that tiring of

17:35

probably all birds. What has increased after that

17:37

and about policy increased. But. The

17:39

researchers were just looking at people with record

17:41

self. We really need and said he

17:44

said that as a comparison group we

17:46

need some idea of what would have

17:48

happened absent the policy change and so

17:50

that's where these other cities com and

17:52

where it to be in use. The.

17:54

Day. Gradual roll out of and the box policies.

17:56

Across different stages jurisdictions just

17:59

as as. It may not

18:01

Roxana. It apparently neutrons. In those

18:03

places where and fly nine times and places

18:05

that didn't adapt and the basque the same

18:07

tone and see what happened to him planet

18:09

no one challenge and said enough is that

18:11

most of our big data thoughts on that

18:14

that economists typically used to study employment don't

18:16

ask about a criminal record and so is

18:18

it is that have been a tricky thing

18:20

to study than the city's with the larger

18:22

sample of here where we can beat most

18:25

inclusive about the evidence I'm really only are

18:27

able to look at by race and sell

18:29

it. so I have researched looking at what

18:31

happened to the employment. As of young black

18:33

line with relatively little education after been the box

18:35

when into effect and found that. On.

18:37

Average band the Box reduced employment

18:40

for that group. That suggests that

18:42

the unintended consequences their dramatically outweighed.

18:45

The I'm The Benefits. Where.

18:47

You're both talking about of studies that look at

18:49

the real world, that look at data sets from

18:51

a factual hiring but how they're not been studies

18:54

as well. We're application for made up people were

18:56

submitted to employers and some of them had criminal

18:58

records and some of them didn't which would have

19:00

I think would allow you to control for more

19:03

variables. What can you top of each of you

19:05

about those studies and what they revealed about the

19:07

position you're taking. Done for wanting to go first?

19:09

Yeah, So there is what's called an

19:12

audit study where researchers and apply to

19:14

real jobs with real job applications by

19:16

they were fictitious applicants which allow them

19:19

to randomly assigned different characteristics across the

19:21

up. The job applications and isolate

19:23

affected the criminal record on and with

19:25

and found with that before it and

19:28

the box people with criminal records were

19:30

called back at much lower rates and

19:32

people without records but the other. Way

19:35

people across differently shoppers were content

19:37

were called back at key moments.

19:39

After the and the box with and

19:41

found was that on the racial disparity

19:43

at Wigan dramatically still fall backwards for

19:46

for white applicants went way up and

19:48

players assumes that they did not have

19:50

a record on by it's ah but

19:53

employers called back Black apple can settle

19:55

lower rates I'm assuming that they. They

19:57

probably get a record as he would. What's yours.

20:00

Tall that. A be evidence out there.

20:02

that and a box is having an

20:04

unintended consequence for people of color. Ice

20:06

is unproven and it's unconvincing, so I

20:08

would. I would say it's far from

20:10

confirmed as Jennifer called it. So with

20:12

regard to this audit testing is matched

20:14

pair testing study. You know they will

20:16

get call backs, not employment so that's

20:18

one thing to keep in mind. And

20:20

also the I think I find the

20:23

timing to be important here and about

20:25

Fire is a policy that you know

20:27

it's not like flipping a snitch. It

20:29

doesn't happen overnight. People don't. Even know

20:31

but the policy overnight things things have

20:33

happened like that and that paper was

20:35

looking at look as soon as one

20:37

minutes and it's and. At most the

20:39

five months after the change happen. So I

20:41

just think that there needs to be

20:43

more evidence that city schools coronation is

20:45

happening before we're going to abandon a

20:47

policy stuff people at Records are calling

20:50

for that. There's been a movement behind

20:52

Communities of Color saying. That they want

20:54

and they need. I think we before we

20:56

discount but. People affected want themselves. We

20:58

need to really be sure that that is

21:00

actually happening. And I'm not. I just I

21:03

really strongly disagree about that. The extent of

21:05

the evidence here. I mean there's there to

21:07

Studies we talked about, their a whole bunch

21:09

of other studies that have been able to

21:11

link administrative date on criminal records with employment

21:13

records. And looking at the effect

21:16

on Be on the Box for people with

21:18

criminal records and they have found zero impact

21:20

on people with criminal records. Looking at earnings,

21:22

looking at whether they'd work at all and

21:24

are they works, you know, more than twenty

21:26

hours a week? Basically like any of com

21:28

you could possibly look for. Looking.

21:31

For for at these employment an impact

21:33

on people with with criminal records to

21:35

I will say let's upfront. going into

21:37

this study at this line of work

21:39

I really expected Band the Box to

21:41

help some people and the question was

21:43

whether the unintended consequences which cancel out

21:45

that benefit. What we're finding is that

21:47

basically there is no benefit for people

21:49

with criminal records. I think a much

21:51

stronger argument for business perhaps frankly is

21:53

thinking about. You know

21:55

what are the it is is more of

21:57

this and normative and moral case for weather.

22:00

Think it's right to sue ask people

22:02

that criminal records but I really don't

22:04

think that the evidence here is. Is

22:06

a where were we were to be on a

22:08

normative and moral part of this. I mean

22:10

I personally Carolina, but what? The. Evidence and what

22:12

the impact of policies are on. And as

22:15

certainly as an Economist, that's generally my stance

22:17

on. A More you're

22:19

taking the Economist I am. I am and

22:21

unfortunately that is. Just the way my brain

22:23

works that yeah and I think I'm much

22:25

more of a consequentialist in terms of what

22:27

I think what I think we should deal

22:29

as you know what's the impact in the

22:32

real world I do recognize their as as

22:34

other side and and and enough can agree

22:36

to disagree on that. I just like to

22:38

reiterate band The Box the how is still

22:40

like a moral imperative even if for accepting

22:42

Stis was diminishing which I know accepting there

22:44

would still be strong policy reason to ban

22:46

the Box. It remains patently unfair to

22:48

screen out people a step one and.

22:51

I don't see how we move. Employers

22:53

past the bias, how we interrupt

22:55

the stereotypes. The unfair stereotypes If

22:57

we allow players to continue to

22:59

freely and unfairly screen out every

23:01

home with a record of friends.

23:04

That can be perpetually locking people up records out

23:06

of important. You. Know and it

23:08

has deep, long lasting. So. Solid suicidal

23:10

harms, especially to come years of

23:12

care. What he studies

23:15

reveal his employer racism that exists. Regardless

23:17

of any down to box policy.

23:19

And we need to address that either

23:21

way. So let's dismiss this false choice,

23:23

expand the box and vigorously and forth

23:26

area to discrimination as. In

23:28

another context, if there was a

23:30

waitress policy, positive impacts that somehow

23:32

incentivized corporations to violate some other

23:34

law, we'd say it forced that

23:37

other. Last, I think it's this

23:39

the stereotypes and a stigma about

23:41

people with records that is causing

23:43

causing this sort of reaction. Public

23:46

let me jump in with yeah I

23:48

thought this was a reminder wouldn't be

23:50

know about what happens further down in

23:52

places where band the box has been

23:54

put into effect when ultimately and employer

23:56

does find out the applicant x does

23:58

have a criminal record. That is

24:00

something different happening in the interactions

24:03

because of that delay or. I

24:05

can see that research shows that

24:07

even and players going to discriminate,

24:09

it's most likely to happen at

24:11

the first interact at the submission

24:13

of it. Have a job application?

24:15

You know? Part of the problem

24:17

with us not fully addressing the

24:19

needs of people with records of

24:21

that that population is so awesome.

24:23

Dehumanize. So let's have any employer

24:25

choose the applicant of still choice

24:27

based on their qualifications, their resume,

24:29

interview and then make a decision.

24:31

I see So you're saying is that if that

24:33

piece of information is not there and and I'm

24:36

and in all other ways. The. Applicant

24:38

looks appealing, looks attractive,

24:40

looks qualified that. Having

24:43

that. Revealed later in the

24:45

process may be more, may be less likely

24:47

to be a disqualify or because the employer

24:49

is sold on all of the other qualities

24:51

the have been revealed to the process is

24:53

at the thought. It's allowing employers

24:56

to but the stereotypes and

24:58

a stigma aside and consider

25:00

a person. A job

25:02

applicant as more. Than just their record? More than

25:04

just a check box which is you know realty Ultimate

25:07

goal here are can read the reason I wanted to

25:09

set out a little bit as the Jennifer you made

25:11

the point in your opening. That's. Look

25:13

buried with if you take way beyond the box

25:15

there's still going to be that point of of

25:17

a reveal of a criminal record and that a

25:19

kind of makes no difference in the end and

25:21

I I was trying to get it. Whether it

25:23

doesn't make a difference or doesn't make not make

25:25

a difference in the and I think on. Your.

25:28

Your question is. Getting at with the help with

25:30

the fallacy was that enough people with with

25:32

records able to get their foot in the

25:34

door filter poor with an employer have been

25:36

see them as something other than their criminal

25:38

records and then when they actually you know

25:40

finally got around to check their backgrounds they

25:42

wouldn't share about the record because they big

25:44

something. This person as is a good person

25:46

she deserves you know as as it does

25:48

is that sense of the stops and the

25:50

what we're seeing in the good as it's

25:52

just not what's happening of the great idea

25:54

but it's a terrible question whether it happens.

25:57

In practice and and I think the

25:59

combination of. Our study where we

26:01

saw that I'm enough enough. Some people,

26:03

some especially black applicants with criminal records

26:05

are now getting a call back. But.

26:08

I knew when we see when we look at

26:10

the administrative date on his actually working. There.

26:13

Are no more likely to actually get a job and.

26:15

So with that suggested that at a time

26:17

of that background check everyone's just getting rejected

26:19

as they would have before, but now they've

26:21

gotten their hopes up and gone all the

26:23

way through this process. Know, maybe over the

26:26

next several decades there's some sort of culture

26:28

change that this all on does all inspires

26:30

and again I think that is. An

26:34

interesting argument that on. Ah,

26:37

We can't. We can't disprove with with

26:39

data like this. But. It's a lot

26:41

to can our hopes on that when we know

26:43

that there are people a lot of people harmed.

26:46

In the short run on and people

26:48

who already struggle in the labor market

26:50

for a variety of reasons, I think

26:52

it's important to tease out here that

26:54

not all sandbox fair chance policies are

26:56

created equally that we're treating it as

26:59

a yes or no a binary. Fights.

27:01

In fact, the you know

27:03

the better policies. Our policies

27:06

that delay the employers inquiries,

27:08

a black background check until

27:10

after they've actually made a

27:12

conditional offer of employment. and

27:14

those policies also require employers

27:16

to consider some basic common

27:18

sense things. Is the conviction

27:21

record actually related to the

27:23

job? How long ago did

27:25

it? Conviction. Record occur. And

27:28

and make an assessment like that, not not

27:30

redux someone unless those things are true. So

27:32

I'll say that you know. When

27:34

we're talking about the research on the in the

27:36

box some of these policies that will if not

27:38

only moved from the initial application and the the

27:40

policies are gonna have the better, more effect at

27:42

a fair chance policies and do more. And

27:44

then that we can continue to build on

27:46

as we move forward. And argue that

27:49

they're more thirds are likely to hurt. More because

27:51

it it him imposes more of a cast on

27:53

employers on the back and if they. Do.

27:55

Want to reject this person? on and so I

27:57

think that the research told me it includes really.

28:00

Are worried about the criminal record a

28:02

signal if something that whether it's the

28:04

person some still engaged in criminal activity

28:06

that this person has emotional trauma that

28:08

they probably haven't dealt with in gotten

28:10

treatment for whole bunch of stuff on

28:12

and. And if. She. For not

28:14

doing anything to directly address the concerns and

28:16

employers are still not going to want to

28:19

hire, we can't force them to hire someone

28:21

they don't want to hire. They're just gonna

28:23

be more proactive about not interviewing those people

28:25

up front so they don't have to pay

28:28

this is tax that these are more intensive

28:30

policies. Our opponents was. Me: We're not

28:32

talking about just people that are. Recently released

28:34

from incarceration? Like, of course that's

28:36

an incredibly important population to be.

28:39

Talking about and we're going to need other

28:41

policies set to help those people rebuild their

28:43

lives after the terrible. Experience of being

28:45

incarcerated, But people who

28:48

were route released years ago, people who

28:50

had minor convictions, people who had some

28:52

high school had a rest. not convictions

28:55

at all. These people are still. Missing

28:57

out on job opportunities and the research. Shows

28:59

that fair employment prospects. Their earnings

29:01

are impacted for the rest of

29:03

their lives. So I do think

29:05

that there isn't nudging that we

29:08

can do sir. Encouraged employers to

29:10

break the status quo. You.

29:12

Know there's also the some on

29:14

a scale from the for profit

29:16

background check, industry selling, and players

29:18

on the fact that they need

29:20

this information that. They you know provoking

29:22

for years and you know that nice

29:24

be counteracted. Agenda For We see

29:27

that that the band The Box movements

29:29

have bipartisan support among legislators worth who,

29:31

who took what is that about? Why's

29:33

why's that so popular? That so flawed?

29:35

I think because it's really cheap and

29:37

easy. We, as a you know, we

29:39

have been locking up people in this

29:41

country for decades and offering. Very.

29:43

Little in terms of any support, a rehabilitation

29:45

and then when people get out were surprised

29:47

that no one wants to hire them on

29:49

and so advocates come along and offer politicians

29:52

a quick and easy sex cause you know

29:54

money to pass that. Our see. Me:

29:56

He doesn't require any investment from taxpayers

29:58

are civilians. The or any really

30:01

happy listen policy makers are either to success,

30:03

a magic wand our weekend we can solve

30:05

our cell. is it any guilt for mass

30:07

incarceration for all these years? I'm with this

30:10

very easy sex and will just telling players

30:12

they can check them. Went back and at

30:14

the at a cast by a criminal back

30:16

on track anymore and ah surprise surprise it

30:18

didn't work. So I mean honestly that's my

30:21

very cynical. Answer for why this is the

30:23

and so popular and so so bi partisan

30:25

and I think it's mischaracterizing what the advocates

30:27

are actually asking for. No one is claiming

30:29

that. and the box. Is a silver bullet

30:31

to address the plane Various This A couple

30:33

of records were saying it's a step necessary

30:36

stack and either he says she be easy

30:38

so I say it's a false choice. Between.

30:40

Be. At The Box and other policies. Let's

30:43

you both. Yes, And that there's nothing

30:45

there. It's actively hurting people. It's keeping

30:47

black men without a criminal record from

30:49

getting a job. I don't think that.

30:51

The. Data Released. I mean. So

30:53

asleep and dancing around it. but you've named.

30:55

A couple said either a fever identified a

30:57

couple said he is that you know. Supposedly

30:59

says discrimination, but there are other studies out

31:01

there. That so that there is. No

31:04

officers to the nursery result. it's about

31:06

the box, so at best the evidence

31:08

is next. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,

31:10

and if research you know it's it's

31:13

purporting to undermine a movement built by

31:15

people with records, the communities of color

31:17

and I. I think we need more

31:19

before it and in it. So.

31:22

I am not familiar with the other

31:24

cities that you're talking about that show

31:26

no discrimination those sizzles donation. The vast

31:28

majority is that he can't look at

31:30

this on that because they're They're looking

31:32

at the typically people with criminal records that

31:34

there are linking with employment data. I

31:36

just completely the and that may disagree

31:38

but the literature as not showing that

31:40

I've been about it not only not

31:42

helping people with the heard it is

31:44

harming I've known with our records and

31:46

until we get really clear that that's

31:48

not as the you know that that is

31:50

not happening. I think. This idea that let's

31:53

just keep doing it in the hopes that

31:55

on that it'll make some people feel that

31:57

is a really odd since. I knew his

31:59

argument. Okay, I'm. The been because I'm because

32:01

I think we're getting a little bit matter in

32:03

the sense that we're talking about that that the

32:05

nature of the studies and I think that's legitimate

32:07

and and the and this this nature of the

32:10

disagreements important to acknowledge. But I don't think we're

32:12

going to get any farther by taking this a

32:14

few more around. So what we're gonna do instead

32:16

is I'm take a break the conversation and when

32:18

we come back are going to continue taking on

32:21

this question band. the box should be banished, the

32:23

criminal history checkbox from job applications and in this

32:25

coming section will be inviting and some other voices

32:27

to help us go deeper. On to that question.

32:30

So backs right after the break. I'm John

32:32

Donne then this is open to debate. If.

32:41

You're an athlete you know the greatest motivator

32:43

of all is the fear of letting your

32:45

teammates down. After all, a team

32:47

is only as good as it's weakest link

32:49

so you only to those wearing the same

32:52

jersey as you to be your best every

32:54

time you step on the field. That's where

32:56

there's no v been team. Mean.

32:58

You've ape. You can expose your

33:00

lungs to toxic chemicals that can

33:02

damage your lungs. If you're a

33:04

step behind the teams, a step

33:06

behind. Brought. To you by

33:08

the real cost and Dst? Yeah, Welcome

33:18

back to open to debate on John On

33:20

and we're taking on this question band The

33:22

Box should we banish the criminal history checkbox

33:25

from job applications? We're joined by Jennifer Diack

33:27

was Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice and

33:29

Arnold Ventures and best a very senior staff

33:31

attorney at the National Employment Law Project. We've

33:33

been talking about the topic for quite some

33:36

time and at this point I would like

33:38

to bring in some other voices are individuals

33:40

who write about this topic and think about

33:42

this topic and study of as well. I

33:45

went to bring in Cgm Allah who's Criminal

33:47

Justice reporter for reason. Magazine Cj. Thanks so

33:49

much for joining us! An open to debate

33:51

and please come in with your question. Thanks

33:53

for having me as beggar a discussion I

33:56

In December, the California Department of Justice filed

33:58

a lawsuit against Kroger. so. The Noncompliance:

34:00

The state's ban the box for how

34:02

big of an issue is non compliance

34:05

And do you think these policies are

34:07

going to require to forsman actions against

34:09

private employers who would like to take

34:11

that question first? Best: the looks like

34:13

you're ready to go a sewer sorts

34:16

noncompliance. You. Know is certainly something

34:18

we need to take into account enforcement.

34:20

Any law that we adopt needs to

34:22

be implemented and enforced. I'm glad to

34:24

see that you know the California agency

34:27

that you're you're mentioning is actively enforcing

34:29

s there are other ways to enforce

34:31

other than filing lawsuits. That not the

34:33

only way. So ah, they've started in

34:36

a kind of data scraping across the

34:38

internet and sending out letters to the

34:40

employers that they see. Not.

34:42

And complying. With with be

34:44

for the requirements are move questions

34:47

about criminal records from Appleton obligations

34:49

and so you know that's one

34:51

way opposite. litigation that were. You.

34:54

Know that their incentivizing compliance, but

34:56

you know, as a lot of

34:58

employers actually do comply. But

35:00

we certainly need to enforce and make sure

35:02

that people are falling off. Jennifer. Comment

35:05

on it out. A loan? Out though, how many

35:07

of these losses are are how widespread

35:09

noncompliance as? as you know if you're

35:11

really difficult to enforce. Policies.

35:13

Like this and in the same way that

35:15

thing about with talking earlier about how this

35:18

religious reveals that Mosul discrimination. With. As

35:20

illegal ah is possible and then and players

35:22

are racially to the racially discriminating. When they

35:24

can ask that a criminal record, the problem

35:26

is it's really difficult to enforce that Ah.

35:29

So you gotta be, you know, really big

35:31

employers were you have a ton of data.

35:33

Looking at their hiring, you might have a

35:35

shot at being able to look at different

35:37

data trans and seeing disparities for seeing that

35:39

you know overwhelmingly they're denying people with criminal

35:42

records and maybe. Maybe there's something you know?

35:44

there's a lawsuit there somewhere. But the

35:46

vast majority of and players have nowhere near

35:48

that number of people at their hiring or

35:50

or and that are applying for jobs every

35:52

month or year and there's just. Unless

35:54

they are foolish enough to say out loud i'm not

35:57

hearing you because you have a criminal record, There's no

35:59

way. Whereas other. Know why someone couldn't get

36:01

a job. As gonna be almost impossible to

36:03

enforce this. Year will the best policies actually.

36:06

Delay. A criminal background

36:08

check until after conditional job

36:10

offer so. That means that the employer

36:13

actually he's to. Say. Just that I

36:15

am rescinding your job offer. Because of

36:17

your conviction History Because of your

36:19

record. What They can give you a

36:21

reason and it's not that article but the

36:23

reason It harder to rescind a job a

36:25

better than these laws prohibit other reasons for

36:28

sending it. For example, New York City.

36:30

You're. Only rescinding it because of a person's criminal

36:32

record. Is

36:36

attempting to isolate that code of the

36:38

decision. And so that's. How we're going to

36:40

enforce the laws. Thank you See do very much

36:43

for your question. Thanks for joining us I want

36:45

to bring in now Asthma Leto and best as

36:47

Executive Director of the Small Business Legal Center of

36:49

the National Federation of Independent Business. By thanks so

36:51

much for joining us and open to debate and

36:53

come on and with your question. Send.

36:55

For haven't either that. that is sad

36:57

that it's patently unfair to screen out

36:59

people at step one. But

37:02

many laws. You. Know, go much

37:04

further than that and you're not even allowed

37:06

or fire about criminal history and so african

37:08

this or offer for late. What?

37:10

Would you say about allowing inquiries into

37:12

criminal history as set to and this

37:14

I recall the enemy. So.

37:17

Knowing that a person's criminal history of

37:19

part of the public effort and a

37:21

sinful nation the see if a school

37:23

districts landlords even little leads to get

37:25

a general sense of applicants killed. That's

37:28

why should four years of the anything

37:30

states not be permitted to enquire about

37:32

the council seminal convicts it's and sets

37:34

make that individualized assessments. Face. To

37:36

face. With. This not eliminate

37:38

somebody at incidents consequences. was disgusted

37:41

I say tickets as. Soon as

37:43

you know, instead of just removing from me

37:45

application instead of waiting until conditional offer why

37:47

don't we ask somewhere. In the middle, that's

37:49

not going to separate remove the stigma from the

37:51

assessment of the person as adequately it's also going

37:53

to be. You know, a lot harder to make

37:56

sure that employers are or aren't following the law

37:58

and never that the first step. The and a

38:00

box. Even. When we're waiting until

38:02

after condition offer is that the employer

38:04

select the applicant. Of their choice and one

38:06

of the most important things were looking at

38:08

when and applet when reflecting applicants. The

38:11

qualifications you're there are many reasons for employers

38:13

to embrace the and the box. But.

38:15

In general, background checks don't help make

38:18

better have hiring decisions. It's hard to

38:20

move away from the status quo. We

38:22

know we need a nudge. Background checks

38:24

in general don't help and players make

38:26

better decisions in terms of in a

38:28

workplace safety. there's no evidence. That workers

38:30

that records are more likely to cause problems

38:32

on a job and workers with records are

38:34

strong and place of subsidies generally show so

38:37

you know for relying on background check information

38:39

in the beginning of the process were just

38:41

letting unfair. Stereotypes controlled the decisions.

38:43

And and that's not what would you say

38:45

that that they bring to the small business

38:48

owner who owns a plumbing contracts anthony and

38:50

is hiring individuals will be going to the

38:52

home crowd at home, sometimes in the house

38:54

alone possibly without homeowners there and which is

38:57

tell that business owner that they should not

38:59

do a background check to find out if

39:01

there was. you know any sort of criminals

39:03

in this is that would be relevant to

39:06

that job. I eat less safe fast as

39:08

it on the business owner to assume all

39:10

the liability of you know hiring somebody who

39:12

might. Go in and potentially reoffend it.

39:15

You know, a small business owner? their

39:17

reputation as every said. Rather go to jump

39:19

into it to it to as the other breath over answer

39:21

your question so thank you. So. I think we

39:23

need to remember what we're We're debating here today. And

39:26

a box. Fair chance policies just delay

39:28

the background checks. The delay, the increase

39:31

See to say that had any impact

39:33

on safety. When the employer is going

39:35

to get to see that information and

39:37

assess it of for the hiring decision

39:40

is finalized, it's just disingenuous to say

39:42

that it's gonna have any. Impact

39:44

on safety? You know certain. Employer

39:46

that may have more of a reason

39:48

to but wanna look at background check

39:50

information for the most part of in

39:52

the box laws across the country. to

39:54

make exceptions when there are laws that

39:56

require a background check require looking at

39:58

that and we settled. The burglars on

40:00

the bucks. I think those. Exceptions are

40:03

unnecessary because you're gonna run the background

40:05

check eventually Anyway, Hope. That

40:07

it doesn't change the fact that as I was,

40:09

the laws are set of rules your to comment

40:11

on what's been sets of our. Yeah I

40:14

mean I think this question about what him

40:16

players are wearing a worried about is super

40:18

important and arm and I think taking ma'am

40:20

at at their word that they do find

40:22

this criminal record information useful is also important.

40:24

There have been research or people try to

40:26

look at like people who have a criminal

40:28

record. What are they like His employees. And

40:31

our current context to jump through a

40:33

lot of hoops to get that job.

40:35

So it's probably really exceptional group of

40:37

people extrapolating from that group and saying

40:39

ever him with a criminal record would

40:41

be a perfectly safe, perfectly good employees

40:43

is just it's just not seeking this

40:45

issue. Seriously, there a couple of really

40:48

interesting policies out there that could potentially

40:50

shifts the risk from employers that are

40:52

worried about lawsuits are bad press to

40:54

courts or the government that you know

40:56

that than a basically screen people and

40:58

and give them one say are real

41:00

of rehabilitation. Certificate or provide insurance. Things

41:02

like that where if we as a society

41:04

say this is in our best interest to

41:07

healthy people get jobs but we recognize that

41:09

you the employer are taking on a riskier

41:11

anchor. Other policies like that that are

41:13

much more promising. It's solving this problem and

41:16

fun of get around this this game

41:18

about like when exactly do we asked about

41:20

the from the record. I just need

41:22

to drive home that background checks are still

41:24

getting run under ban the Box policies and

41:26

were you were saying to conflate Multiple discussions

41:28

here I say I think that's a fair

41:31

point but every but but I have a

41:33

question for you course do. Similarly,

41:36

Challenge: Criminal Background Checks Do find those

41:38

problematic or do you think that those

41:40

are a different that very very different

41:42

phenomenon from that first round of check

41:44

the box. I'll say that do

41:46

I dream of a world where we don't

41:48

need to run background checks? were born, players

41:50

don't feel compelled for most sobs. Yes, Are

41:52

we there Now know to I think that

41:54

we can take steps in that direction. your

41:57

to require that employers have some sort

41:59

of this necessity for rejecting somebody with

42:01

a record? You know, New York, the whole state

42:03

has a law like that. Illinois has a law

42:05

like that. Atlanta recently passed a law like that.

42:07

So can we take steps in that direction? Sure.

42:10

But we're not there yet in terms of, you

42:12

know, getting rid of background checks. And I'm not

42:14

trying to say that we need to hurry there.

42:16

I also just want to add, like, I mean,

42:18

most employers I talk to are desperate to find

42:20

good employees who are going to show up every

42:23

day and do a good job. The idea that

42:25

they're just, you know, rejecting perfectly good applicants

42:27

who they don't have a good business reason

42:29

to reject is just

42:31

doesn't seem connected with the reality of

42:33

the labor market. It seems clear to

42:35

me the vast majority of employers are

42:37

genuinely worried about a criminal record for

42:40

some reason. They think it is a

42:42

signal of something. And so until we

42:44

change their minds about that, all this

42:46

other stuff is sort of window dressing. I

42:48

think, well, this is sort of a million dollar

42:50

question where we're not entirely sure.

42:52

But in actual surveys of

42:54

employees, they do talk about legal liability

42:56

risks. They worry about someone

42:59

committing another crime on the job. I

43:01

think the nightmare scenario for most employers

43:03

is someone assaults a customer or a

43:05

fellow employee, and then they're

43:07

liable, maybe legally liable in a negligent

43:09

hiring lawsuit, but honestly, probably much more

43:11

likely just liable in terms of bad

43:13

press. If there's a local

43:15

newspaper article saying they this person hired a

43:18

felon and assaulted a customer and

43:20

that person's in the, you know, in the

43:22

ER right now, then they lose all their

43:24

business. That's a catastrophic risk for a business

43:26

owner. And if we don't take that seriously,

43:28

we're not going to solve this problem. I

43:30

genuinely think there are other policy solutions here

43:33

we could be pursuing, which,

43:36

you know, focusing on Ban the Box precludes us from

43:38

doing. Beth Melito, I want to thank you for joining

43:40

us. I need to let you go. But thanks very

43:42

much. And Beth Avery, you had a response. Yeah, I

43:45

just want to agree that there

43:47

are other policy approaches. And I

43:49

say yes and let's do both. They're not

43:52

mutually exclusive. You know, part of what you

43:54

said earlier that, you know, Ban the Box

43:56

is cheap. And that's, that makes it easy

43:58

to also find some of these other programs

44:00

that we're trying to do. So I say do both.

44:02

And in terms of the legal liability that

44:05

we were talking about a moment

44:07

ago, the research shows that

44:09

those concerns are overblown, liability is rare.

44:11

For most jobs, the risk of liability

44:14

is extremely low. And if you're talking

44:16

about negligent hiring liability, getting sued for

44:18

something like that, the causality required to

44:21

prove those cases is very

44:24

difficult. And quite frankly, something must have

44:26

happened in the regular course of a

44:28

job that was closely related to the conviction.

44:31

And what are we trying to encourage employers to do to look

44:34

at the job relatedness of the conviction? So

44:36

if you're doing that, you're not going to

44:38

be setting yourself up for any legal liability

44:40

issues. I think the problem is that in retrospect,

44:42

almost anything can look like a red flag, right? If

44:44

it turns out they just had a marijuana conviction, and

44:47

then they went on to, to assault the customer, it's

44:49

like, well, we should have known that this person, you

44:52

know, was hanging out with a bad crowd and

44:54

was, was involved in drugs. And

44:56

so that, that is the reason that we should

44:58

have known not to hire them. And again, I

45:01

think, you know, sometimes it's negligent hiring risk. And

45:03

that's something clearly employers are worried about based on

45:05

current screening practices, they're not sued very often, I

45:07

agree, but if we change their screening practices, they

45:09

might be. But really, I think what they're more worried about

45:12

is the bad press. And so that's

45:14

going to be the court of public opinion.

45:16

There's survey data out there, you know, that

45:18

supports that customers and co workers have supportive

45:21

attitudes, you know, that shows that most customers

45:23

are comfortable visiting businesses that employ people with

45:25

records and receiving assistance from formerly

45:27

incarcerated employees. And the same for workers

45:29

and their co workers. So I do think

45:31

that we're moving in that direction. And but

45:34

if we, you know, if we continue to

45:36

accept that people with records

45:38

are dangerous, and we play into these fears,

45:41

we're never going to get past that. And so, you know,

45:44

beyond the box, their trans policies is attempting to

45:46

break up that stigma to move past it. Do

45:49

we need to do other things? Yes. Yes, let's

45:51

do more. I'm 100% in favor of

45:54

culture change. I think that is one of

45:56

the biggest benefits that band the band box movement

45:58

has given us. It's the actual policy. that

46:00

get out ahead of the culture change that is having

46:02

the unintended consequences. Okay, so as we come towards the

46:04

end, we hear the two of you finding some common

46:07

ground and a place in where you can agree. But

46:09

in our closing round, which we're coming to now, it's

46:11

your last chance to tell us why you disagree. So

46:14

we're going to go to closing remarks, Beth

46:16

Avery, you have the first opportunity to tell

46:18

us one more time why you believe we

46:20

should ban the box. Thank you. I

46:23

first heard Sandra Johnson tell her story back in

46:25

2017 when we were working together

46:27

to pass the California Fair Champs Act. Sandra

46:29

spent 15 years in and out

46:31

of prison. She's all too familiar with how it

46:33

goes to check the box on job application after

46:35

job application and never get a call

46:38

back. But with some assistance, she managed to land a

46:40

job as a driver at a

46:42

local transportation company after she was released the

46:44

last time. She worked there for six

46:46

years and dedicated herself to

46:48

being a team player. She was

46:50

never disciplined. She was named employee

46:53

of the month and driver of the year. She

46:55

was supporting herself and that gave her something to

46:57

feel good about. Then the

46:59

company changed management in 2013 and she

47:01

was abruptly fired after a background check.

47:04

When Sandra tells this private story, she frequently

47:06

becomes emotional because it

47:09

meant that none of her hard work and progress

47:11

mattered. In the end, all

47:13

that mattered was her record. Sandra is a mother,

47:15

a grandmother and

47:18

a great grandmother. And

47:20

since the passage of the California Fair Champs Act, she's

47:22

worked as an advocate for people with records. Now

47:24

she's at Legal Aid Network. She

47:26

knows the Fair Champs Act was important,

47:29

but that more is needed. And

47:31

she's currently working with the California Coalition to Support

47:33

the Just Sexes Jobs Act, that will build

47:36

on the California Fair Champs Act and take

47:38

the next steps to ensuring fair job opportunities

47:40

for people with records. Now, because this whole

47:42

debate really boils down to whether we truly

47:44

respect the humanity of people with records, I'll

47:47

end with Sandra's words. I

47:49

am a person. I am a human

47:51

being. And like all other formerly incarcerated

47:53

people, I deserve a chance to make

47:55

a living, support my family and

47:58

myself to be a contributing member of

48:00

the community and an asset to my society. Thank

48:03

you, Beth. And now, Jennifer Doleak, you

48:05

have the final word in this debate. Your closing

48:07

statement, please, to tell us why you think banning

48:09

the box is not a

48:11

good idea. I care about this issue

48:13

because I care about helping people with criminal

48:16

records reintegrate into their communities, breaking

48:18

the incarceration cycle, helping them find jobs,

48:20

support their families, support their communities. We've

48:23

tried to ban the box policies. They don't

48:25

work. They've actually broadened discrimination in a way

48:27

that harms young black men who don't have

48:30

criminal records. It's time to

48:32

abandon these policies and focus on alternatives that

48:34

take employers' concerns seriously. Now,

48:36

I'm an optimist. I see a few paths

48:38

forward here. One, as I

48:41

said before, we can find a way to shift the risk

48:43

for employers to courts or the government. One

48:45

way to do this is through court-issued rehabilitation

48:47

certificates. There have been a few interesting

48:49

audit studies now showing if you have a certificate,

48:52

a judge has said you are

48:54

work-ready and have been rehabilitated. Employers

48:57

call you back at the same rate as if you never had

49:00

a conviction at all. Another

49:02

possibility is providing insurance that covers employers in

49:04

the case that someone commits a crime on the

49:06

job. This is similar to what exists in

49:08

the federal bonding program, but at a much

49:10

higher rate. A recent study, an experiment on

49:12

a job platform suggested a million-dollar

49:14

insurance policy

49:17

covering all—anyone with a criminal

49:19

record who's hired. That

49:21

was substantially—had a meaningful impact on

49:23

getting employers to hire people with

49:26

criminal records. The second thing

49:28

we could do is invest in rehabilitation. If

49:30

a criminal record doesn't signal

49:32

anything negative to an employer anymore in terms

49:34

of someone's work readiness, then employers won't care

49:37

about it. One thing

49:39

I think is really important is improving healthcare access,

49:41

including mental healthcare and substance use treatment.

49:44

Another is cognitive behavioral therapy, a program that's

49:46

been found to be super effective at reducing

49:49

people's recidivism and increasing educational

49:51

attainment. Finally, we

49:53

need to acknowledge how difficult this problem is to

49:55

solve and aim to fail fast rather than not

49:58

fail at all. is

50:00

most of our good ideas will not work. To

50:02

figure out what does work, the needles in

50:04

the haystack of good ideas will need to

50:06

implement new programs and policies in

50:09

a way that allow the success to study their

50:11

impacts. And I really just want to close by

50:13

urging everyone to keep our eye on the ball.

50:15

Our shared goal here is helping people with criminal

50:17

records, find steady jobs and reintegrate into their communities.

50:20

So let's collectively demand evidence that our policies

50:22

are accomplishing this. We might have

50:24

different ideas about how to get there and that's fine,

50:26

that's great. Let's try all those different approaches and see

50:28

where they take us. My main

50:31

ask is that we don't become wed to solutions before

50:33

we know if they work and that

50:35

we don't let our egos and politics get in the way of

50:37

changing people's lives. Thank you, Jennifer. And that

50:39

is a wrap on this debate and I want to thank

50:41

both of our debaters, Beth Avery and Jennifer Doleak. We

50:44

so appreciate that you came and addressed this

50:46

issue, this tough issue with

50:48

empathy actually for those

50:50

that we're talking about and also for one another and

50:53

that you did so civilly. It's what we aim

50:55

for when we put on these conversations

50:57

and discussions that open to debate and you both were

50:59

just superb at doing so. So thank you so much

51:01

for taking part in this debate with us. My

51:04

gosh, thank you so much for inviting us. And I

51:06

also would like to thank our guests, CJ and Beth

51:08

for what they brought to the conversation as well. And

51:11

finally, a big thank you to all of you, the audience

51:13

for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. You

51:15

know, as a nonprofit working to combat

51:17

extreme polarization through what you just heard,

51:20

civil debate, our work is made possible

51:22

by listeners like you, by the Rosencrantz

51:24

Foundation and by supporters of Open to

51:26

Debate. Robert Rosencrantz is our chairman, our

51:28

CEO is Klaya Conner, Leah Matha was

51:30

our chief content officer. This episode was

51:32

produced by Alexis Pangrazi and Marliet Sandoval,

51:34

editorial and research by Gabriela Mayer, Andrew

51:36

Foote and Vlad Wiertenen. Andrew Lipson and

51:38

Max Fulton provided production support. Mili Shah

51:41

is director of audience development and the

51:43

Open to Debate team also includes Gabriele

51:45

Yanachelli, Rachel Kemp, Linda Lee and Devin

51:48

Shermer. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our

51:50

theme music is by Alex Clement and

51:52

I'm your host, John Donven. We'll

51:54

see you next time on Open to Debate. to

52:00

your credit card rewards. 3D

52:13

corporate megastores led by Walmart and Target are

52:15

pushing for a long Congress to take

52:21

away your hard-earned cashback and travel

52:23

points to line their pockets. The

52:25

Durbin Marshall Credit Card Bill would

52:27

enact useful credit card routing mandates.

52:30

They would end credit card rewards as we

52:32

know it. If you love your credit

52:34

card rewards, tell your lawmakers, hands

52:36

off, my rewards. Tell

52:39

them to oppose the Durbin Marshall Credit

52:41

Card Bill.